Reality check: what are the rules governing ministers?

The defence secretary Liam Fox is fighting accusations that he gave a close personal friend inappropriate access to government. But what exactly are the rules about ministerial conduct?
Polly Curtis, with your help, investigates. Email your views to
polly.curtis@guardian.co.uk, contact her on Twitter
@pollycurtis or join the debate below the line.

8.53am:Liam Fox's career hangs in the balance amid accusations that he gave a close personal friend inappropriate access to his governmental office. He has admitted that it was wrong to allow the perception that his personal and political life had become blurred. Adam Werritty, who has defence industry interests, carried a card claiming to be an adviser to Fox when he had no official role and visited Fox at the Ministry of Defence 14 times in the past 18 months.

Fox's explanation of key meetings that Werritty was involved in organising, on his friend's status as a personal friend of official adviser and on whether Werritty had accompanied him on official oversea trips, have changed as the Guardian reported the revelations.

I'm going to go through the ministerial code and ask some academics in this area what their view is. Can you help? Do you have specialist knowledge of the code or an interest in this area? Email your views to polly.curtis@guardian.co.uk, contact me on Twitter @pollycurtis or join the debate below the line.

Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.

This is important because Fox's statement on Sunday acknowledges that his actions may have given "an impression of wrong-doing". He said that there was no wrong-doing – Werritty did not profit personally from his access – but he added:

Nevertheless, I do accept that given Mr Werritty's defence-related business interests, my frequent contacts with him may have given an impression of wrongdoing, and may also have given third parties the misleading impression that Mr Werritty was an official adviser rather than simply a friend.

If Werritty - who has been a flatmate and was best man at his wedding - is considered to be a "private interest" of the secretary of states, it could be reasonably concluded that he broke the code.

9.56am: I've just read through the 30 page ministerial code and here are some initial thoughts:

• The only offence that automatically demands a resignation is lying to parliament. It says:

It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.

• Under the code, ministers are also expected to follow the seven principles of public life, which were established by the Nolan committee. This sets out the most basic thing an electorate can expect of a minister: that they tell the truth. But lying to the public is not an automatic sacking office and if a ministers' honesty is question, much depends on that minister's handling of the situation and ultimately Downing Street's verdict.

• Other than the question of lying to parliament, ministers can decide how to abide by the principles in the code and there is no science in judging whether they have breached them. They have to be able to justify themselves to Parliament and the public but ultimately this it is a question of whether they maintain the confidence of the prime minister. That's why with each cabinet scandal Downing street will inevitably be asked whether the PM still has confidence in the cabinet member in question. The code says:

Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to act and conduct themselves in the light of the Code and for justifying their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public. However, Ministers only remain in office for so long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. He is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards.

• Fox asked his permanent secretary to investigate the allegations against him and that report will go to the prime minister today. But the rules state that officials are not expected to enforce the code; the independent adviser on Ministers' interests is. The code says:

It is not the role of the Cabinet Secretary or other officials to enforce the Code. If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code, and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary feels that it warrants further investigation, he will refer the matter to the independent adviser on Ministers' interests.

• Under the code, ministers are required to published details of their external meetings quarterly and as @WhosLobbying points out Fox is certainly in breach of the ministerial code in that he hasn't reported his for six months. I would guess that this is not that unusual, however. I haven't had a look yet but the others are available here.

From my reading of the code a few new questions arise:

• Fox's statement on Sunday said that he accepts that "given Mr Werritty's defence-related business interests, my frequent contacts with him may have given an impression of wrongdoing". Does this break the code which says that: "Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise"? Much will depend on whether Werrity's private interests, as a close personal friend of Fox, might be interpreted as his private interests.

• Why hasn't the independent adviser on ministers' interests been involved in the initial inquiry?

• Did Fox break the Nolan principles demanding honesty of ministers? Fox initially claimed that Werritty had not travelled on official overseas trips with him but video evidence later emerged proving he had attended such visits. The MOD initially denied that Werritty was anything other than a personal friend to the secretary of state but later he admitted that their frequent contact could have given the impression of something more official. He has also accepted that it was wrong to meet with a defence supplier with officials being present in a meeting that Werritty was involved in setting - which he had previously said arose form a chance meeting in a restaurant.

This has all left me feeling a little miffed. If the ministerial code states"Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise."Then surely, having admitted: "my frequent contacts with him may have given an impression of wrongdoing"The minster has just admitted breaking the code..?

Matthew Ashton, lecturer in politics and media at Nottingham Trend University, was interviewed on the Today programme today in which he addressed these points. What he said might help explain why, even if Fox is found guilty of breaching that aspect of the code, he may not lose his job. You can listen to it here but he said that regarding paragraph 7.1, Fox had admitted to allowing a perception of wrong-doing and not the "definitely more damaging" offence of actual wrong-doing.

It [the code] means what David Cameron wants it to mean. The next 24 hours will be crucial; he can take the mood of parliament, see how the public feel and see how the press feel. He's hoping with this interim report and the questioning today to draw a line under the matter especially with the apology yesterday. The real problem arises if this story keeps going in the press if there are headlines tomorrow and the day after. Then it could be very problematic.

Another academic,Simon Usherwood, senior lecturer in politics at the University of Surrey, has this to add:

The Werrity case has highlighted a number of questions that cause some concern. Firstly, how has such a situation managed to come about in the first place? The ministerial code is relatively clear and the level of involvement by Werrity would surely have raised questions long before now. Secondly, it shows us that the perception is more important than the facts: regardless of what further revelations appear, the damage is already done for Dr Fox in terms of his credibility and his position in office.

12.48pm: Ursula Brennan, the permanent secretary at the MoD, will report today to the prime minister in an interim form only. The full report will be completed by September 21. Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, will also be asked to give an opinion on it. The inquiry will be entirely conducted by civil servants and the decision on what action to take will be Cameron's.

I've been reading more about the role of the independent advisor on ministers' interests. Sir Philip Mawer is the current advisor. The point of the post is to provide some sort of independent scrutiny to the process. Mawer was appointed by Gordon Brown but has so far only published one inquiry, in which he cleared the then communities minister Shahid Malik over his expenses. It seems obvious to me that the minute a prime minister calls in the independent investigator they lose their control over a situation, which is perhaps why Mawer hasn't been too busy of late.

At the lobby briefing this morning (Number 10's daily briefing of journalists based in the Commons) the PM's official spokesman apparently refused to engage in any questions about the process of the inquiry. My colleague, Andrew Sparrow, who was there just dropped me this note:

The prime minister's official spokesman blanked all "process" questions. He said the review was underway, interim report coming at some point and that PM would discuss it with the cabinet secretary. He did not rule out bringing in the independent adviser, but did not flag it up as a likely option either. It seems Fox pre-empted this by launching his own inquiry into himself. No 10 would not say whether they knew about this in advance - implying they didn't.

Patrick Wintour, the Guardian's political editor, suggests in this article that Mawer could still be called in, depending on the outcome on the interim report.

So in answer to my question above, why hasn't the independent advisor been called in yet? it's because a, Fox was canny enough to set the terms of the inquiry and b, Downing Street hasn't insisted on it - yet.

Thought I'd post a quick summary of the potential breaches of the ministerial code of conduct identified so far:

• Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise. Fox's close friendship with someone who has financial interests in the defence industry, and claimed to be his adviser setting up what appeared to be official meetings, could amount to such a conflict. A key question will be whether it is proved that Werritty ultimately profited from the arrangements.

• Ministers must also ensure that none of their actions "could reasonably be perceived" to amount to a conflict of interest. Fox has admitted his actions could have given the wrong impression. "...I do accept that given Mr Werritty's defence-related business interests, my frequent contacts with him may have given an impression of wrongdoing," he said.

• Ministers must abide by the Nolan principles, which dictate they should act with selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The shifting explanation Fox has given for the actions of Werritty, could lead to the "honesty" pledge being questioned. For example, he claimed that a meeting with a lobbying firm in Dubai had occurred by chance, when in fact Werritty had set it up.

• Ministers have to publish lists of who they are meeting quarterly; Fox's last publication was six months ago.

Rupert Neate, the Guardian reporter who broke this story, has just tweeted this:

We should see shortly which other elements of the code Labour believes Fox may have broken.

3.49pm: Labour are alleging that Fox has broken six clauses in the ministerial code of conduct. These are 1.2(f), 5.2, 7.1, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5 of the ministerial code. I think there's a bit of double counting going on - 1.2(f) and 7.1 are essentially the same thing, but it's worth reading their full analysis:

1.2(f): Perception of conflict of interest

Ministerial Code

Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests

Liam Fox's actions

Liam Fox's statement yesterday said that he had allowed the perception of a conflict to arise: "My frequent contacts with him [Adam Werritty] may have given an impression of wrongdoing, and may also have given third parties the misleading impression that Mr Werritty was an official adviser rather than simply a friend".

5.2: Advice from civil servants

Ministerial Code

Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants, as well as to other considerations and advice in reaching policy decisions, and should have regard to the Principles of Scientific Advice to Government.

Liam Fox's actions

Dr Fox admitted in his statement yesterday that "it was wrong to meet with a commercial supplier without the presence of an official". Dr Fox cannot "give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants" if he is having meetings without them.

7.1: Perception of conflict of interest

Ministerial Code

Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.

Liam Fox's actions

Dr Fox admitted in his statement yesterday that "my frequent contacts with him [Werritty] may have given an impression of wrongdoing, and may also have given third parties the misleading impression that Mr Werritty was an official adviser rather than simply a friend". At the very least, therefore, Dr Fox appears to have broken the Ministerial Code by admitting that he failed to ensure that no conflict "appears" to have arisen.

7.3, 7.4, 7.5: Declaration of interests

Ministerial Code

On appointment to each new office, Ministers must provide their Permanent Secretary with a full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict. The list should also cover interests of the Minister's spouse or partner and close family which might be thought to give rise to a conflict.

Liam Fox's actions

Dr Fox provided a list of his personal interests but this did not include any reference to Adam Werritty or to Security Futures, the company of which Mr Werritty is a director.

4.02pm: The last three clauses that Labour is highlighting, regarding the ministers' declaration of interests, are interesting. I don't think that on the face of the rules Fox can be found to have breached by failing to declare a best friend's interests because they only apply to spouses or close family members. Had Werritty been Fox's partner or related to him closely, the failure to declare his defence industry interests would have been a clear breach. The rules do not, however, cover best friends, which some might argue is an anomaly.

Jim Murphy demanded that the Fox produce evidence on each of the alleges breaches otherwise the "ministerial code is not worth the paper it is written on", he said.

The ministerial code says that ministers should avoid conflicts of private and personal interests – and even the perception that there might be one. Fox has admitted to the latter, lesser offence. The inquiry will establish whether the more serious allegation of an actual conflict is true or not. It also says that ministers should follow a set of seven principles of public life, which include "honesty". Fox's shifting explanation of his meeting in Dubai raises serious questions about whether he has, at all times, been honest.

Labour claims that Fox also breached parts of the code that dictates that ministers should have regard to impartial advise from civil servants, because they weren't present at the Dubai meeting. The shadow defence minister Jim Murphy also claimed that Fox had failed to declare Werritty's financial interests in the defence industry in his ministerial interests – but these only apply to spouses, partners or close family members, not to best friends and flat mates.

The only straight-forward sacking offence in the code is lying to parliament. There is no suggestion that he has done so. The rest is at the prime minister's discretion and he is yet to even call in the independent advisor on ministers' interests to investigate the case.

The case reveals the limitations of the ministerial code. There will be pressure in parliament and from the public to hold Fox to account, but ultimately only the prime minister can judge whether the code has been broken, meaning that there is a disincentive for the prime minister to relinquish political control in favour of an independent inquiry. As Matthew Ashton, a politics lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, said today: "It [the code] means what David Cameron wants it to mean."